Jun 13, 2012 -- 5:22PM, Girlchristian wrote:

I havent once been mean to you and if you want to resort to name calling them i'm done discussing this with you.

You accused me of claiming that people are "too stupid" to make their own decisions.  A bald faced lie which I'm used to from one of your compadres, not from you.  Yes, I'm done discussin this with YOU because you will not do me the courtesy of understanding what I'm saying and then rebutting it because you disagree with it.  Instead you make accusations. Bye.

Jun 13, 2012 -- 5:28PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 5:16PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 5:09PM, Cesmom wrote:

This does affect all of us...perhaps not directly, but indirectly.  It creates a precedent that says it's okay for the government to decide what businesses are and are not allowed to sell to consumers, regardless of whether it's a true and immediate health risk. 

Exactly, but it seems that some have no problem with more gov't control.

Why would this make any sense?

If you put public health before private profit, how would that create a precedent "regardless of whether it's a true and immediate health risk"???

Please spell this out to me. And rabello, if she's still around...

One, businesses will profit MORE from this because people will pay the $1.50 for a refill and will buy a second 16 oz drink if they want. Those evil, immoral businesses that Rabello hates will have even more profit and obesity wont decrease because of this legislation.

Do you honestly think that a person drinking a 32 oz drink is a public health issue? So is it okay for the gov't to tell donut shops that they can only sell 3 donuts per customer because there is too much sugar and fat in donuts? How about movie theaters should they be told they can only allow patrons a certain amount of butter on their popcorn because too much butter is unhealthy? Where does legislation like this end?

Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:19PM, Nepenthe wrote:

You and I share the same goal of trying to make the health of our people, especially our children, better.  We come at it from different angles, but it is the same goal.  Now, libertarians are mostly concerned with property rights and individual freedom.  What I see when I see an overweight child drinking a large soda is the parents infringing on the property rights of that child.  The child is too young to make the informed decision, so the parents are the ones committing the wrong.  Where as you will blame the profit-seekers, I will blame the parents for not properly parenting.

However, that does not deal with my comment, that this ban has nothing to do with health concerns.  That is because it doesn't; it is Bloomberg simply doing those little things he can do to exert more and more control over the city.  

Nepenthe, I am sorry I did not respond to your post sooner, but I did want to address it.  First off, thank you for the measured and respectful way you responded to my post.   I guess what I don't understand is how what Bloomberg came up with is exerting more control over the city.  I could see it if he was scrubbing voter rolls the way the governor of Florida is doing, or establishing poll tax of voter tests for minorities, or establishing a curfew for blacks, hispanics and puerto ricans, or granting no bid contract to cronies, or establishing a veritiable police state like Giuliani did, but having businesses serve 16 ounces in one transaction just doesn't rise to the occasion of "gov't control" in my book.....they'd have to reallow smoking and give drunk drivers their rights back to be consistent with the knee-jerk anti-government side.

I'm pretty much done here. I started out because there was so much knee-jerk reactionary-ism here, and since that ain't gonna change, I'm not wasting any more time.  

Jun 13, 2012 -- 5:48PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 5:37PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Where does legislation like this end?

I think the question in the USA is rather, under what conditions would even you start to think that "legislation like this" could begin?

Do you approve of tobacco taxes? If so, how is this different?

No, I don't approve of them as a means to try and limit smoking as smokers will just pay the tax. In my state the tobacco tax money goes to pay for clinics that provide free or no cost health care. That money hasnt decreased and we're still a state with a very high number of smokers...but we use those monies to pay for health care for some of those smokers so we claim we're doing good.

Jun 13, 2012 -- 6:45PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 6:20PM, Girlchristian wrote:

No, I don't approve of them as a means to try and limit smoking as smokers will just pay the tax.

Well, the strategy seems to overall work - the factual data disprove what you claim.

Smoking and its consequence lung cancer are on the decline.

Yes but you assume it's because of taxes? It's more likely that it's because of education and the fact that smoking is no longer seen as 'cool' because we know what it can do.

The Law of Demand works, and therefore government, when relying on it, works.

You can still ruin your health if you really want, it's just more costly. But you can also be deterred by the costs, think twice, and take a much better decision. Especially if you're a teenager, don't have much money, but are at highest risk to start the habit.

Government enhances self-determination where necessary. It makes you think twice and find out what your preferences really are. Whether about lung cancer risks, or about obesity risks.

You're giving gov't way too much credit, it's merely making money off of people's bad choices in the case of taxes on things like smoking.